-
ITAT - Where the Assessing Officer has failed to follow the guidelines issued for selecting the cases for scrutiny, assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law.
M/s. S.F. Chougule Versus The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax And Vice-Versa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11749 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53728&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Penalty notice issued (u/s 271(1)(c)) in the present case suffers from infirmity i.e. lack of satisfaction and lack of notice being issued in making the assessee aware of exact charge against him, hence, the same is quashed.
V.T. Palresha and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11748 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53730&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since assessee has substantiated the identity and credit worthiness of the donor and the genuineness of the transaction, addition u/s. 69 should not have been made in respect of gift received by the assessee from his wife for purchase of the agricultural land.
Daudayal Murarilal Gupta Versus ITO, Ward-1 (1), Solapur
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11592 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=52401&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since assessee failed to prove that charges was paid for removal of encroachments have been paid in cash, development expenses incurred in respect of land sold by the assessee not allowable.
Subhash Jagannath Kakade Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ahmednagar and Smt. Kakade Vijaya Subhash Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (3) , Aurangabad
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11582 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=52247&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Incentive paid to the extent of salary would not partake the nature of bonus merely because the nomenclature applied by the assessee is bonus. No disallowance u/s 43B on account of bonus.
Shri Chandrasekhar D. Shende Versus The Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle – 3, Malegaon
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11581 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=52244&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Compensation to flat owners for delay in handing over of possession was in the course of business, hence not a penalty. Allowed u/s 37(1).
Kamdhenu Real Estate’s Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle 11 (1), Pune
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11555 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=52267&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Payment in cash for purchase of agricultural commodities is covered by Rule 6DD(e) of the Rules. Without bringing any material on record of the purchases being not verifiable, the Assessing Officer could not have resorted to make an ad-hoc disallowance.
Chand Fruit Company Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range–2, Sangli
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11551 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=52255&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Where complete details were available in the public domain, merely because the assessee by an error had not included the same in computation of income, it cannot be held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, making the assessee liable for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Dhananjay Rajaram Gupte vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11437 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
S. 234E: Entire law on whether fee for late filing of TDS returns can be levied prior to 01.06.2015 and whether the intimation issued u/s 200A is appealable explained
Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11357 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 234E
-
ITAT - Difference between the rate stated in the letter of intent and the sale agreement is the undisclosed income. Principle of extrapolation of ‘on-money’ on the other shops sold/booked rejected in the absence of any material on record.
Raviraj Kothari Associates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 2, Pune
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11320 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51709&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - When a partner retires from the firm and receives share of amount calculated on the value of partnership asset including goodwill of the firm, there is no transfer of interest of the partner in the goodwill and no part of the amount received is exigible as capital gain u/s 45.
Shri Sachin Bhausaheb Nikam Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11 (2), Pune.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11319 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51710&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Entire disallowance of payment made to hutment dwellers for vacating the land while computing long term capital gains not justified.
Smt. Ujjawala Sitaram Baheti Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Jalgaon and Vica-Versa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11316 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51687&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - CIT u/s 263 (whre AO failed to initiate penalty proceedings) cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not a part of assessment proceedings.
Shri Nandkumar Bhalchandra Bhondve Versus The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 9, Pune
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11254 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51612&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Since delay in finalization of accounts was beyond the control of assessee (newly appointed Accountant took some time to pick up the threads of the work left in between by the outgoing incumbent), no penalty u/s 271B.
Prachin Group Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Panvel
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11250 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51616&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Disallowance on depreciation claimed on valuation of Government Securities “Held to Maturity” (HTM) category not justified.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Jalgaon Versus Jalgaon Janta Sah. Bank Ltd. and Vica-Versa
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11237 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51578&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - AO is not empowered to charge the fees u/s 234E by way of intimation issued u/s 200A in respect of defaults before 01.06.2015.
Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune Versus DCIT, Ghaziabad
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11234 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51560&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Interest paid to partners on capital contribution not liable for disallowance u/s 14A.
Quality Industries vs. JCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11206 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section. 14A
-
ITAT Fee levied u/s 234E to be deleted absent enabling provision u/s 200A prior to June 1, 2015.
Gajanan Constructions and others vs. DCIT (TDS) and others
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11194 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections. 200A, 234E
-
ITAT - Big ticket land purchase without employing any fund of his own and almost immediate re-sale thereof clearly demonstrates the implicit intention of the assessee that the transaction entered was nothing but an ‘adventure in the nature of trade’ i.e. a business transaction.
Dilip Battu Karanjule Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5 (2), Pune
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11172 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51437&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - Provisions of section 40A(3) are not applicable to capital expenditure.
Nandu Antram Rajput Versus DCIT Central Circle-2 (3), Pune
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11114 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50721&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.